7 ms·

Testing, the Chinese Way

42 points by robg 16y ago

kiba 16y ago
On one hand, a poor measurement of teaching performance do more harm than good. However, it is also true that human judgement of student performance can easily be skewed in various ways. So, the solution is to find some kind of measurement that accurately reflect somewhat student progress. This way, teachers can reliably test education experiments. Of course, the larger problem is probably the teachers' possible resistance to the scientific method and poor training in devising experiments.
- celoyd 16y ago
  If you can come up with an idea of “student progress” that everyone can agree on and measure, you’ve just solved education.
strebler 16y ago
Interesting Chinese test taking fact: in the recent past, the final test in high school in China (University entrance / SAT equivalent) was taken so seriously that children who traveled (from more rural areas) would be given a military escort in order to ensure they were present. The result of that test basically dictated a major part of the rest of students' lives. The test taking tradition is centuries old in China - one of the emperors (forget which one) made many of the civil servant type positions require exams in order to cut down on the cronyism that was rampant at the time. It worked and the tradition stuck for quite a long time.
- w1ntermute 16y ago
  > children who traveled (from more rural areas) would be given a military escort in order to ensure they were present Reminds me of an article I read about South Korea, where the police escort students to the big high school exam. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120339767 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1203397... http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/GK30Dg01.html http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/GK30Dg01.html
- wisty 16y ago
  It's actually a good way to ensure that only bright, hard working students get filtered into top positions. At least, it's better than the usual alternatives - nepotism, cronyism, plutocratic selection, and politicking. Of course, the test degraded (over centuries) to a several day exam, where students were expected to write a massive essay. So they just competed to smuggle in lots of stock essays that they could just copy an appropriate one out.
Jun8 16y ago
This sort of thing is not unique to China or "Asian cultures" but to all underdeveloped countries with too few good schools, where going to the wrong school can be a career death sentence. Personal experience: I am from Turkey and had to go through two testing periods that determined my life: One, at 11, that determined which secondary school I could go to. Every private school had its own exam, so as a kid you had to take 6-8 exams in about two weeks (the system has changed since then, now there's a single exam). The worse one was the university entrance exam (actually two exams, a couple of months apart): close to a million people took it with me. The top department in the top university admitted only about 50 students each year! These 2-3 hours really determined your future, since if you couldn't get admitted to the 1-2 popular universities your job prospects were pretty much doomed. I still remember the hordes of anxious parents waiting outside the building where the exam was held. The level of math and physics you had to know/memorize was mind boggling; compared to that, the math part of SAT is a joke. I used to both envy the US students who didn't have to go through such a grueling, trial by fire selection process to go to good universities and also think that our selection process was much superior, since it it made you learn much more. After finishing my PhD in the US, teaching classes here, and working professionally, I now know that this is not true. This forced feeding approach to eduction mostly produces socially awkward, nerdy people who are experts but are not creative. I know, this is such a cliche, but believe me, I can back it up from personal observation in the workspace. I think, neither the relaxed, "it's the job of the professor to make me learn" US college attitude nor the extremely competitive test based approach elsewhere is ideal. However, I think the correct approach is much closer to the former than the latter. EDIT: Just remembered a personal experience that illustrates the point: I recently interviewed at a software company. One of my interviewers of Asian origin asked me an algorithmic question. I came up with an approach (admittedly not very good) and tried to give my reasons; he wasn't satisfied. At the end, he got up and declared "The answer is ..." He wasn't interested in a method or approach, but the answer. I think the worst thing that a test-based education can enforce is this "answer worship", since that is such a warped way to view problems.
- mlinsey 16y ago
  The article hints that many frequent tests might actually be that middle ground. While one or two high-stakes tests that determine your entire career lead to a ton of stress and probably aren't a good measure of overall learning, many frequent tests that each individually aren't consequential allow kids to get a sense of their progress with less of the stress. I really liked the Prof's Cizek's quote in the article: "What’s best for kids is frequent testing, where even if they do badly, they can get help and improve and have the satisfaction of doing better,” he said. “Kids don’t get self-esteem by people just telling them they are wonderful.”
albahk 16y ago
Here we preach the startup mantra of constant feedback and correcting course on your business in order to know in what areas you need to improve. Why is it that different for kids that need to know, for example, that they suck at multiplication tables and so need to improve for their next exam? Sometimes we overthink things way too much.
- jonasvp 16y ago
  Well, yes and no. Grades went out of favor because there actually is a considerable body of research pointing to the fact that grades are harmful. What they do is not simply pointing out weaknesses but establishing a ranking. One schildert is suddenly 10% "better" than another because of that seemingly objective number below the test. It reduces children (who are sensitive to messages like that) from a full person with a unique character to their performance as tested. If you haven't yet developed the necessary cynicism to deal with this onedimensional assessment of personhood, you will quickly. If that is actually desirable is another matter.
ahi 16y ago
“Research has long shown that more frequent testing is beneficial to kids, but educators have resisted this finding,” said Gregory J. Cizek, a professor of educational measurement and evaluation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. How convenient that the "research" confirms his relevance.
- aik 16y ago
  I completely agree. This article is full of oddities like that, drawing correlations in places where it does not necessitate causation. "These are not the big once-a-year or once-in-a-lifetime exams, like the SATs, but a stream of smaller, less monumental tests, designed in theory, at least, primarily to help students and their teachers know how they’re doing" How profound. How exactly does that differ from current exams!? K-12 students don't have once-in-a-lifetime exams - they have less monumental tests that already take the focus away from what school is for - learning - not assessing. More assessments will lead to more focus on passing assessments and less focus on students and then less learning. Who can argue this? The fact that Chinese schools may possibly (which I'm suspicious of in the first place) have more tests, should in now way be seen as a cause for better learning. Here are a number of things the Chinese do better than most in the states that would lead to superior education: 1. Parents are more involved in their kids education. 2. Students are more involved in their own education. 3. Teachers are more involved in quality teaching/mentoring. 4. Teaching/learning methodologies are better. How ridiculous.
  - aik 16y ago
    In addition, the article ends with one of the author's children asking [while in a class that has no tests]: “How do I know if I get what’s going on in math class?” I find this kind of thinking dangerous in that this question is essentially asking another person to think for you. Sometimes the answer should be a string of questions, not always a test. What do you feel you have learnt? Do you remember anything? Do you feel it has changed you? Was anything memorable? Did you enjoy the class? Do you enjoy doing problems? Do they interest you? Do you feel you are learning well?...Please think about it, child. What do you feel?
  - 16y ago
wslh 16y ago
I didn't like the article, it seems like another absolutist point of view. The answer is probably: it depends.
vasi 16y ago
It may be instructive to note that Finland is another country with a school system that seems to do particularly well, and that is held in high regard by other countries. In contrast with China, their system discourages standardized testing, especially for young children—iirc, they don't even receive grades until fifth grade. See, eg: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wherewestand/reports/globalization/finland-whats-the-secret-to-its-success/206/ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wherewestand/reports/globalization/f... and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120425355065601997.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120425355065601997.html So what does this mean? Clearly there's more to it than just "more testing is necessary!" or the reverse. Is the Anglosphere in some "unhappy middle", where moving towards either more OR less testing would help? Is the amount of testing in fact orthogonal to school performance? I know both Finland and China are said to have high levels of societal respect for education, perhaps that's the crucial factor—but I'm not aware of any good measurements of this, maybe it's anecdotal. Another hypothesis is that there's a fairly hard limit to how well children can be educated at this point in time, and that the best schools in Finland, China and the U.S. all near this limit. In China we only look at the best schools and students, and with so many people in China the best will look pretty good. Finland has very high equality and homogeneity, so the worst schools aren't so far off from the best, and the whole country comes out looking good. The U.S., however, has many badly funded schools and marginalized populations, so that could make the difference. Then the question becomes whether we can approach Finland's success, or if the Anglo countries are too inherently different. Again, this entire paragraph is truly rampant speculation, and my mind and gut are both skeptical. Thoughts, anyone?
- osdf 16y ago
  I like your comment. You probably are not German, but if, you would like the texts of Reinhard Kahl (http://reinhardkahl.de/ http://reinhardkahl.de/). His texts are basically about the question 'What kind of school works', and actually 'What do we mean by "school works"'. Among others he tried hard to demystifiying the success of the finnish school system in the first PISA test, argueing against just copying blindly some aspects that _seemed_ important (e.g. like you, he pointed out that 'education' was socially highly respected in Finnland, unlike in most other european countries). He constantly writes about (german) schools that achieve very good results in tests like PISA, highlighting what they do differently. It is quite interesting that he often finds methods or techniques in these schools that fit really well a lot of findings in neuroscience and psychology (without the teachers at these school knowing anything about these findings!). So what are some things he advocates: (i) no longer teach in a fixed classroom setting, instead, every student should learn by himself, according to weekly/monthly/yearly plans that are setup together with his teacher(s) [main reason for this: every human is special, our brains do not develop at the same speed at the same time] (ii) do not kill the researcher in the children, instead foster playfulness in live and study and show that effort is something deeply satisfying (iii) Authentic teachers, authentic parents, authentic grown-ups (iv) Bring the 'real' live/world into the school (vi) open the school up to the 'real' live, schools should be centers in our society, (vii) at school you don't teach subjects, you teach human beings (viii) there is no school to rule them all and many more aspects. I like his stuff so much because he shows and describes places that really work, and also manages to write about philosophical aspects of these questions (he often connects to writings from Hannah Arendt about eduction). PS: I'm aware that I can't give justice to the stuff Kahl writes, what I have written is quite incomplete. But one has to read it on its own. I'm also aware that some of this stuff is only relevant for german schools, yet I think the broader questions is relevant for all countries. PPS: Refrain from calling me a hippy, a dreamer, a communist or any other stereotype _you_ think is negative. I went through the normal (german) school and university system and it gradually became clear to me, that things as they were and are working are not as good as we want to think, actually, things are rather bad. I'm looking for new ways and possible solutions, trying to find the right questions.
psyklic 16y ago
Tests teach discipline, and they are the most practical way of testing knowledge in some areas. However, no matter how you make the metric, this problem is largely psychological. To do well, a student must be motivated to learn. And one of the biggest motivators at this level is that "I always am at the top of my class in this subject, so I enjoy it." Not everyone can be at the top, so naturally the others won't care as much. They will stop trying to get an A and settle with "not failing." And the students who start failing will stop caring completely. If you hide a student's ranking, then that initial motivation, "I do better than the others," disappears and we are left with students who must be entirely self motivated. And that happens so rarely that it isn't a practical motivator.
JoeAltmaier 16y ago
If integrated into daily routine, quizzes are no more anxiety-producing that, for instance, sprints as warmup in {name any sport}. It can be a fast way to get the mental juices flowing. This is way too much discussion about way too little. Leave it up to the teacher to choose how and when to drill, measure, and stretch their pupils.

42 points by robg 16y ago

kiba 16y ago

On one hand, a poor measurement of teaching performance do more harm than good. However, it is also true that human judgement of student performance can easily be skewed in various ways. So, the solution is to find some kind of measurement that accurately reflect somewhat student progress. This way, teachers can reliably test education experiments. Of course, the larger problem is probably the teachers' possible resistance to the scientific method and poor training in devising experiments.

celoyd 16y ago
If you can come up with an idea of “student progress” that everyone can agree on and measure, you’ve just solved education.

strebler 16y ago

Interesting Chinese test taking fact: in the recent past, the final test in high school in China (University entrance / SAT equivalent) was taken so seriously that children who traveled (from more rural areas) would be given a military escort in order to ensure they were present. The result of that test basically dictated a major part of the rest of students' lives. The test taking tradition is centuries old in China - one of the emperors (forget which one) made many of the civil servant type positions require exams in order to cut down on the cronyism that was rampant at the time. It worked and the tradition stuck for quite a long time.

w1ntermute 16y ago
> children who traveled (from more rural areas) would be given a military escort in order to ensure they were present Reminds me of an article I read about South Korea, where the police escort students to the big high school exam. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120339767 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1203397... http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/GK30Dg01.html http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/GK30Dg01.html
wisty 16y ago
It's actually a good way to ensure that only bright, hard working students get filtered into top positions. At least, it's better than the usual alternatives - nepotism, cronyism, plutocratic selection, and politicking. Of course, the test degraded (over centuries) to a several day exam, where students were expected to write a massive essay. So they just competed to smuggle in lots of stock essays that they could just copy an appropriate one out.

Jun8 16y ago

This sort of thing is not unique to China or "Asian cultures" but to all underdeveloped countries with too few good schools, where going to the wrong school can be a career death sentence. Personal experience: I am from Turkey and had to go through two testing periods that determined my life: One, at 11, that determined which secondary school I could go to. Every private school had its own exam, so as a kid you had to take 6-8 exams in about two weeks (the system has changed since then, now there's a single exam). The worse one was the university entrance exam (actually two exams, a couple of months apart): close to a million people took it with me. The top department in the top university admitted only about 50 students each year! These 2-3 hours really determined your future, since if you couldn't get admitted to the 1-2 popular universities your job prospects were pretty much doomed. I still remember the hordes of anxious parents waiting outside the building where the exam was held. The level of math and physics you had to know/memorize was mind boggling; compared to that, the math part of SAT is a joke. I used to both envy the US students who didn't have to go through such a grueling, trial by fire selection process to go to good universities and also think that our selection process was much superior, since it it made you learn much more. After finishing my PhD in the US, teaching classes here, and working professionally, I now know that this is not true. This forced feeding approach to eduction mostly produces socially awkward, nerdy people who are experts but are not creative. I know, this is such a cliche, but believe me, I can back it up from personal observation in the workspace. I think, neither the relaxed, "it's the job of the professor to make me learn" US college attitude nor the extremely competitive test based approach elsewhere is ideal. However, I think the correct approach is much closer to the former than the latter. EDIT: Just remembered a personal experience that illustrates the point: I recently interviewed at a software company. One of my interviewers of Asian origin asked me an algorithmic question. I came up with an approach (admittedly not very good) and tried to give my reasons; he wasn't satisfied. At the end, he got up and declared "The answer is ..." He wasn't interested in a method or approach, but the answer. I think the worst thing that a test-based education can enforce is this "answer worship", since that is such a warped way to view problems.

mlinsey 16y ago
The article hints that many frequent tests might actually be that middle ground. While one or two high-stakes tests that determine your entire career lead to a ton of stress and probably aren't a good measure of overall learning, many frequent tests that each individually aren't consequential allow kids to get a sense of their progress with less of the stress. I really liked the Prof's Cizek's quote in the article: "What’s best for kids is frequent testing, where even if they do badly, they can get help and improve and have the satisfaction of doing better,” he said. “Kids don’t get self-esteem by people just telling them they are wonderful.”

albahk 16y ago

Here we preach the startup mantra of constant feedback and correcting course on your business in order to know in what areas you need to improve. Why is it that different for kids that need to know, for example, that they suck at multiplication tables and so need to improve for their next exam? Sometimes we overthink things way too much.

jonasvp 16y ago
Well, yes and no. Grades went out of favor because there actually is a considerable body of research pointing to the fact that grades are harmful. What they do is not simply pointing out weaknesses but establishing a ranking. One schildert is suddenly 10% "better" than another because of that seemingly objective number below the test. It reduces children (who are sensitive to messages like that) from a full person with a unique character to their performance as tested. If you haven't yet developed the necessary cynicism to deal with this onedimensional assessment of personhood, you will quickly. If that is actually desirable is another matter.

ahi 16y ago

“Research has long shown that more frequent testing is beneficial to kids, but educators have resisted this finding,” said Gregory J. Cizek, a professor of educational measurement and evaluation at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. How convenient that the "research" confirms his relevance.

aik 16y ago
I completely agree. This article is full of oddities like that, drawing correlations in places where it does not necessitate causation. "These are not the big once-a-year or once-in-a-lifetime exams, like the SATs, but a stream of smaller, less monumental tests, designed in theory, at least, primarily to help students and their teachers know how they’re doing" How profound. How exactly does that differ from current exams!? K-12 students don't have once-in-a-lifetime exams - they have less monumental tests that already take the focus away from what school is for - learning - not assessing. More assessments will lead to more focus on passing assessments and less focus on students and then less learning. Who can argue this? The fact that Chinese schools may possibly (which I'm suspicious of in the first place) have more tests, should in now way be seen as a cause for better learning. Here are a number of things the Chinese do better than most in the states that would lead to superior education: 1. Parents are more involved in their kids education. 2. Students are more involved in their own education. 3. Teachers are more involved in quality teaching/mentoring. 4. Teaching/learning methodologies are better. How ridiculous.
- aik 16y ago
  In addition, the article ends with one of the author's children asking [while in a class that has no tests]: “How do I know if I get what’s going on in math class?” I find this kind of thinking dangerous in that this question is essentially asking another person to think for you. Sometimes the answer should be a string of questions, not always a test. What do you feel you have learnt? Do you remember anything? Do you feel it has changed you? Was anything memorable? Did you enjoy the class? Do you enjoy doing problems? Do they interest you? Do you feel you are learning well?...Please think about it, child. What do you feel?
- 16y ago

wslh 16y ago

I didn't like the article, it seems like another absolutist point of view. The answer is probably: it depends.

vasi 16y ago

It may be instructive to note that Finland is another country with a school system that seems to do particularly well, and that is held in high regard by other countries. In contrast with China, their system discourages standardized testing, especially for young children—iirc, they don't even receive grades until fifth grade. See, eg: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wherewestand/reports/globalization/finland-whats-the-secret-to-its-success/206/ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wherewestand/reports/globalization/f... and http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120425355065601997.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120425355065601997.html So what does this mean? Clearly there's more to it than just "more testing is necessary!" or the reverse. Is the Anglosphere in some "unhappy middle", where moving towards either more OR less testing would help? Is the amount of testing in fact orthogonal to school performance? I know both Finland and China are said to have high levels of societal respect for education, perhaps that's the crucial factor—but I'm not aware of any good measurements of this, maybe it's anecdotal. Another hypothesis is that there's a fairly hard limit to how well children can be educated at this point in time, and that the best schools in Finland, China and the U.S. all near this limit. In China we only look at the best schools and students, and with so many people in China the best will look pretty good. Finland has very high equality and homogeneity, so the worst schools aren't so far off from the best, and the whole country comes out looking good. The U.S., however, has many badly funded schools and marginalized populations, so that could make the difference. Then the question becomes whether we can approach Finland's success, or if the Anglo countries are too inherently different. Again, this entire paragraph is truly rampant speculation, and my mind and gut are both skeptical. Thoughts, anyone?

osdf 16y ago
I like your comment. You probably are not German, but if, you would like the texts of Reinhard Kahl (http://reinhardkahl.de/ http://reinhardkahl.de/). His texts are basically about the question 'What kind of school works', and actually 'What do we mean by "school works"'. Among others he tried hard to demystifiying the success of the finnish school system in the first PISA test, argueing against just copying blindly some aspects that _seemed_ important (e.g. like you, he pointed out that 'education' was socially highly respected in Finnland, unlike in most other european countries). He constantly writes about (german) schools that achieve very good results in tests like PISA, highlighting what they do differently. It is quite interesting that he often finds methods or techniques in these schools that fit really well a lot of findings in neuroscience and psychology (without the teachers at these school knowing anything about these findings!). So what are some things he advocates: (i) no longer teach in a fixed classroom setting, instead, every student should learn by himself, according to weekly/monthly/yearly plans that are setup together with his teacher(s) [main reason for this: every human is special, our brains do not develop at the same speed at the same time] (ii) do not kill the researcher in the children, instead foster playfulness in live and study and show that effort is something deeply satisfying (iii) Authentic teachers, authentic parents, authentic grown-ups (iv) Bring the 'real' live/world into the school (vi) open the school up to the 'real' live, schools should be centers in our society, (vii) at school you don't teach subjects, you teach human beings (viii) there is no school to rule them all and many more aspects. I like his stuff so much because he shows and describes places that really work, and also manages to write about philosophical aspects of these questions (he often connects to writings from Hannah Arendt about eduction). PS: I'm aware that I can't give justice to the stuff Kahl writes, what I have written is quite incomplete. But one has to read it on its own. I'm also aware that some of this stuff is only relevant for german schools, yet I think the broader questions is relevant for all countries. PPS: Refrain from calling me a hippy, a dreamer, a communist or any other stereotype _you_ think is negative. I went through the normal (german) school and university system and it gradually became clear to me, that things as they were and are working are not as good as we want to think, actually, things are rather bad. I'm looking for new ways and possible solutions, trying to find the right questions.

psyklic 16y ago

Tests teach discipline, and they are the most practical way of testing knowledge in some areas. However, no matter how you make the metric, this problem is largely psychological. To do well, a student must be motivated to learn. And one of the biggest motivators at this level is that "I always am at the top of my class in this subject, so I enjoy it." Not everyone can be at the top, so naturally the others won't care as much. They will stop trying to get an A and settle with "not failing." And the students who start failing will stop caring completely. If you hide a student's ranking, then that initial motivation, "I do better than the others," disappears and we are left with students who must be entirely self motivated. And that happens so rarely that it isn't a practical motivator.

JoeAltmaier 16y ago

If integrated into daily routine, quizzes are no more anxiety-producing that, for instance, sprints as warmup in {name any sport}. It can be a fast way to get the mental juices flowing. This is way too much discussion about way too little. Leave it up to the teacher to choose how and when to drill, measure, and stretch their pupils.